LGCDP M&E Framework

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Access to public goods/drinking water Indicator: % of rural households with sustainable access to improved water source Rationale: Drinking water through reservoirs and pipes is a typical service provided by local governments through LGCDP. Limits: According to the Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys, “improved source” refers to piped water into house/yard/plot, public tap/standpipe, tube well or borehole, protected dug, protected spring and rainwater. Non-improved source include unprotected dug well, unprotected spring, tanker truck, surface water. Baseline: 80.2% (2006) Target: Target to be determined Means of Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys Verification Frequency not known Responsibility Population Division, Ministry of Health and Population Access to public services Indicators: • % of citizens that say that the services of DDCs are more accessible than they were one year ago • % of citizens that say that the services of VDCs are more accessible than they were one year ago • % of citizens that say that the services of municipalities are more accessible than they were one year ago Rationale: Apart from access to infrastructure, this indicator captures changes in perceived accessibility of public services delivered by the DDC, VDCs and municipalities. The indicator generally captures “access” to services, which includes that the person providing the service is available, accessible, able and capable of providing it. The indicator tracks changes in perception over a one-year period rather than a static measure of client satisfaction. Limits: • This indicator does not disaggregate the different types of services provided by the DDCs/VDCs/municipalities, but gives an overall picture of changes in the perceptions of citizens. The data is obviously subjective and influenced by many external factors. However, at a highly aggregated level and tracked over numerous years the data will be able to show trends and tendencies. • The one-year recall was chosen because changes in perception can be reasonably expected within a year, and it is not too far for citizens to still be able to remember the status 12 months ago. Baseline: To be determined by LGCDP baseline survey in 2009 Target: To be determined after the LGCDP baseline survey Means of LGCDP sample surveys Verification Frequency every 2 years (2009, 2011, 2013) Responsibility M&E Section of MLD 6
1.3. OUTCOMES OUTCOME 1 LGCDP Outcome 1: Citizens and Communities engaged actively with Local Governments and hold them accountable Analysis of Outcome formulation: • The outcome contains two separate but related elements: a) engagement with local governments, and b) holding local governments accountable. • Although the outcome refers to both citizens as well as communities, the programme implies that in many cases, citizens will engage with local governments through community organizations. • Although not specifically mentioned in the outcome formulation, the logic of LGCDP implies a particular emphasis on engaging those citizens who have previously not been involved in community organizations and in local government. Many (but not all) of these citizens will be members of a marginalized group and/or women. • Communities broadly refers to permanent and temporary communities and to formal as well as informal communities. • “Engaged” refers to an involvement during planning, decision-making, implementation and monitoring of local government activities. It refers to a participatory approach and should result in a high degree of ownership. • Local governments refer to District Development Committees (DDCs), Village Development Committees (VDC) and Municipalities. • Holding local governments accountable includes two key elements: a) being aware and understanding what local government can/should do, b) transparency by being able to ask questions to local governments on financial and other issues. citizens and communities engaged actively with Local Governments and hold them accountable engagement with local governments holding local governments accountable planning implementation representation inclusion knowledge transparency 7
Page 1 and 2: Ains Local Government and Community
Page 3 and 4: 1. LGCDP Monitoring and Evaluation
Page 5: Access to public goods/general Indi
Page 9 and 10: Indicators: • % of participants a
Page 11 and 12: ) ACCOUNTABILITY The following indi
Page 13 and 14: a.) MANAGING RESOURCES DDCs Indicat
Page 15 and 16: VDCs Indicator: % of all 3915 VDCs
Page 17 and 18: OUTCOME 3 LGCDP Outcome 3: Strength
Page 19 and 20: STAFFING POLICIES Indicator: Local
Page 21 and 22: Indicator: % of VDC Secretaries who
Page 23 and 24: LGCDP Sample Surveys do complement
Page 25 and 26: LGCDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLA
Page 27 and 28: 2069 1 st Trimester: • Indicator
Page 29 and 30: Indicators Indicator Baseline Indic
Page 31 and 32: INCLUSION • % total budget of DDC
Page 37 and 38: ANNEX 2: TEMPLATE FOR INDICATOR TRA
Page 39: HOUSEHOLD / CITIZEN LEVEL % of rura

LGCDP M&E Framework

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?